lundi, 31 juillet 2017

On Friday night, July 28, US President Donald Trump said that he would sign into law the increased economic sanctions (passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House) against any business that is declared to have "knowingly provided goods or services... for construction, modernisation, or repair of Russia’s energy export pipelines."

President Trump had gotten Congress to agree to limit the application of this provision only to "The President, in coordination with allies of the United States, may impose five or more of the sanctions described in section 235 with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, makes an investment described in subsection (b) or sells, leases, or provides to the Russian Federation, for the construction of Russian energy export pipelines, goods, services, technology, information, or support."

But the new law still does include "SEC. 232. SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PIPELINES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION." That Section punishes "Goods, services, technology, information, or support described in this subsection are goods, services, technology, information, or support that could directly and significantly facilitate the maintenance or expansion of the construction, modernization, or repair of energy export pipelines by the Russian Federation." That includes the crucial Nord Stream pipeline, which is maintained by Russian and German companies to transport gas from Russia to the EU.

US firms have thus now gotten their stooges in Congress to punish European and Russian companies that will be determined by "The President, in coordination with allies of the United States," to be working together in these ways, to get Russia’s gas to Europe’s markets.

has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres (1.9 trillion cubic feet), but its capacity is planned to be doubled to 110 billion cubic metres (3.9 trillion cubic feet) by 2019, by laying two additional lines.[5] Due to EU restrictions on Gazprom, only 22.5 billion cubic metres (790 billion cubic feet) of its capacity is actually used.[6] The name occasionally has a wider meaning, including the feeding onshore pipeline in the Russian Federation, and further connections in Western Europe.

So, already, the US oligarchs have greatly reduced the effectiveness of this enormous European and Russian investment, and this is already war by the US oligarchs (and their congressional agents) against both Europe and Russia; but, the new sanctions aim to go even further to absolutely cripple Europe and Russia.

President Trump is to be credited for having weakened this provision to such an extent that it will be virtually meaningless; but, the intention of the oligarchs who control the US, to force Europe to buy from them, and from their allied Saudi, UAE, Kuwaiti, and the other royal fundamentalist Sunni Arab families, is clear.

Other highlights from this new US law are well summarized in the July 28 article from Zero Hedge, "Trump Confirms He Will Sign Russia Sanctions Bill." The biggest concession that Trump made was to allow that this new law, "H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," "Codifies existing US sanctions on Russia and requires Congressional review before they are lifted." This is an Executive-Legislative agreement (an agreement between the President and Congress), but the US Constitution doesn’t include any provision allowing an Executive-Legislative agreement to violate the Constitution; and there are a number of provisions in the US Constitution that H.R.3364 might be determined by courts to be violating. This is presuming, of course, that key judges cannot be bought-off.

When a country is being ruled by its oligarchs, anything that the nation’s Constitution says, can be viewed as little more than an impediment, not any outright ban, because the actual Constitution, in any such country, is whatever they want it to be. Just how bad the US government has become, can’t yet be determined, but might become clear fairly soon.

mercredi, 09 décembre 2015

Will Turkey be able to replace Russian gas with Qatari imports?

A recent meeting between Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani gave rise to a new rhetoric in Turkey: Turkey will be able to meet any shortfall in Russian gas supplies with new imports of Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG). Any new LNG contracts signed with Qatar, the argument goes, now can be substituted for the gas Turkey currently buys from Russian sources — that is to say, about 50% of all of Turkey’s gas demands. But this is not actually feasible. Not only are Turkey’s limited LNG storage and gasification capacity not sufficient for the amount of expensive Qatari gas the country would need, but also long-term energy contracts and a take or pay clause tie Russia and Turkey for at least 10 more years. In the meeting between Turkish and Qatari delegations on Dec. 2, more than a dozen agreements cemented bridges between Qatar and Turkey in areas including defense, energy education and travel. Article 13 of the agreement refers to a memorandum of understanding between Turkey's state-owned Petroleum Pipeline Corporation (BOTAS) and the Qatari national petrol company regarding the long-term supply of LNG, reported AA, Turkey’s state-owned press agency.

According to the Turkish parliament’s official press release regarding the natural gas agreement between BOTAS and Qatar Petroleum, Erdogan said, “As you know, Qatar Petroleum has had a bid to invest in LNG in Turkey for a long time. Due to the known developments in Turkey, they are studying what kind of steps they could take in LNG and LNG storage. We expressed that we viewed their study positively. As you know, both the private and public sector have LNG storage facilities. This one will be an investment between governments.” In Turkey, this expression of the “known developments” has been interpreted as referring to the escalating crisis between Turkey and Russia in the aftermath of Turkey’s downing of a Russian warplane and the growing fear regarding an eventual gas supply disruption from Russia. Some argue LNG imports from Qatar can replace the 27 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas imported annually from Russia. The Radikal website referred to the agreement by saying Turkey has found an alternative to Russian gas, and the daily HaberTurk reported this as a pre-emptive measure of Russia’s ability to cut gas supplies to Turkey. This argument is unrealistic because Turkey does not today have the infrastructure necessary for the gasification and storage of the quantity of LNG equivalent to what is imported annually from Russia — i.e., 27 bcm per year. This rhetoric is also unnecessary because Turkey does not need to substitute its gas supply from Russia. Not only do legal obligations tie both countries together for at least the next 10 years, but also the Russian economy — due to its oil and gas dependency — cannot afford to lose Turkey, the world’s second-largest consumer of Russian gas. Turkey cannot realistically replace its Russian gas supply with LNG imported from Qatar with its existing infrastructure for gasification and LNG storage. Turkey's annual imports from Russia represents more than 50% of its demand. According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) analysis, Turkey's annual LNG regasification capacity does not exceed 14 bcm and its LNG storage capacity is limited to approximately 3 bcm. This storage capacity represents less than 5% of the country’s demand, below the European average — for comparison, Germany can store 20% of its consumption and it is still far from satisfying the IEA’s criteria. With this infrastructure, in the best-case scenario, Turkey’s capacity for LNG trade could still not reach 20% of its gas consumption. This agreement is not the first agreement signed with Qatar. Turkey already imports LNG from Qatar on the basis of temporary deals. In 2009, Taner Yildiz, Turkey's then-minister of energy and natural resources, and in 2014 President Erdogan both announced agreements with Qatar Gas for BOTAS’ LNG imports. Despite these previous agreements, Qatari gas has never constituted a substantial part of the Turkish gas imports. Among other reasons, the price of Qatari LNG is not competitive with the price of gas supplied via the pipeline from Russia. Even though Qatar is providing about a third of the global LNG trade, the recent shale gas boom in North America frustrated Qatar’s LNG export plans because Qatari's gas price remains high in the LNG market. That is why, while Qatar was previously expecting to deliver much of its LNG to Europe and the United States, it has now begun exploring Asian markets like China, India and South Korea, as well as Turkey. Considering that Turkey's external energy shortfall is 6% of its gross domestic product and accounts for 58% of the trade deficit, in the future, energy import prices will only increase in importance as a factor — importing expensive Qatari gas can only increase this deficit further. Turkey imported 27.4 bcm of natural gas from Russia last year, the equivalent of 56% of its total consumption. Turkey’s demand for gas has more than doubled in 10 years, to the point where it is Gazprom’s second-largest consumer, after Germany. This has created a high economic mutual dependency for both countries. This relationship is built on long-term gas contracts controlled via international regulations; the party who breaks this interdependency without any legal justification will find itself obliged to pay heavy indemnities to the other party. Because of significant upfront capital investments on the part of producers for the exploration, design and construction of the facilities, natural gas contracts are signed for 20-25 years and include a clause outlining “take-or-pay conditions.” These conditions are a risk allocation mechanism between the buyer and the seller of the natural gas. Turkey’s contracts with Russia are long-term take-or-pay natural gas contracts that force Ankara to either take the contracted amount or pay the fee for the amount anyway. As Russia cannot cut gas to Turkey, Turkey cannot stop its gas purchase from Russia either.Al-Monitor

lundi, 16 mars 2015

Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, Israel, Gaza, and Energy Wars in the Middle East

Ex: http://www.tomdispatch.com

Talk of an oil glut and a potential further price drop seems to be growing. The cost of a barrel of crude now sits at just under $60, only a little more than half what it was at its most recent peak in June 2014. Meanwhile, under a barrel of woes, economies like China's have slowed and in the process demand for oil has sagged globally. And yet, despite the cancellation of some future plans for exploration and drilling for extreme (and so extremely expensive) forms of fossil fuels, startling numbers of barrels of crude are still pouring onto troubled waters. For this, a thanks should go to the prodigious efforts of "Saudi America" (all that energetic hydraulic fracking, among other things), while the actual Saudis, the original ones, are still pumping away. We could, in other words, have arrived not at "peak oil" but at "peak oil demand" for at least a significant period of time to come. At Bloomberg View, columnist A. Gary Shilling has even suggested that the price of crude could ultimately simply collapse under the weight of all that production and a global economic slowdown, settling in at $10-$20 a barrel (a level last seen in the 1990s).

And here's the saddest part of this story: no matter what happens, the great game over energy and the resource conflicts and wars that go with it show little sign of slowing down. One thing is guaranteed: no matter how low the price falls, the scramble for sources of oil and the demand for yet more of them won't stop. Even in this country, as the price of oil has dropped, the push for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring expensive-to-extract and especially carbon-dirty Canadian "tar sands" to market on the U.S. Gulf Coast has only grown more fervent, while the Obama administration has just opened the country's southern Atlantic coastal waters to future exploration and drilling. In the oil heartlands of the planet, Iraq and Kurdistan typically continue to fight over who will get the (reduced) revenues from the oil fields around the city of Kirkuk to stanch various financial crises. In the meantime, other oil disputes only heat up.

Among them is one that has gotten remarkably little attention even as it has grown more intense and swept up ever more countries. This is the quarter-century-old struggle over natural gas deposits off the coast of Gaza as well as elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. That never-ending conflict provides a remarkable and grim lens through which to view so many recent aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and long-time TomDispatch regular Michael Schwartz offers a panoramic look at it here for the first time.

By the way, following the news that 2014 set a global heat record, those of us freezing on the East Coast of the U.S. this winter might be surprised to learn that the first month of 2015 proved to be the second hottest January on record. And when you're on such a record-setting pace, why stop struggling to extract yet more fossil fuels? Tom

The Great Game in the Holy Land How Gazan Natural Gas Became the Epicenter of An International Power Struggle

Guess what? Almost all the current wars, uprisings, and other conflicts in the Middle East are connected by a single thread, which is also a threat: these conflicts are part of an increasingly frenzied competition to find, extract, and market fossil fuels whose future consumption is guaranteed to lead to a set of cataclysmic environmental crises.

Amid the many fossil-fueled conflicts in the region, one of them, packed with threats, large and small, has been largely overlooked, and Israel is at its epicenter. Its origins can be traced back to the early 1990s when Israeli and Palestinian leaders began sparring over rumored natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza. In the ensuing decades, it has grown into a many-fronted conflict involving several armies and three navies. In the process, it has already inflicted mindboggling misery on tens of thousands of Palestinians, and it threatens to add future layers of misery to the lives of people in Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus. Eventually, it might even immiserate Israelis.

Resource wars are, of course, nothing new. Virtually the entire history of Western colonialism and post-World War II globalization has been animated by the effort to find and market the raw materials needed to build or maintain industrial capitalism. This includes Israel's expansion into, and appropriation of, Palestinian lands. But fossil fuels only moved to center stage in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship in the 1990s, and that initially circumscribed conflict only spread to include Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, and Russia after 2010.

The Poisonous History of Gazan Natural Gas

Back in 1993, when Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) signed the Oslo Accords that were supposed to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and create a sovereign state, nobody was thinking much about Gaza's coastline. As a result, Israel agreed that the newly created PA would fully control its territorial waters, even though the Israeli navy was still patrolling the area. Rumored natural gas deposits there mattered little to anyone, because prices were then so low and supplies so plentiful. No wonder that the Palestinians took their time recruiting British Gas (BG) -- a major player in the global natural gas sweepstakes -- to find out what was actually there. Only in 2000 did the two parties even sign a modest contract to develop those by-then confirmed fields.

BG promised to finance and manage their development, bear all the costs, and operate the resulting facilities in exchange for 90% of the revenues, an exploitative but typical "profit-sharing" agreement. With an already functioning natural gas industry, Egypt agreed to be the on-shore hub and transit point for the gas. The Palestinians were to receive 10% of the revenues (estimated at about a billion dollars in total) and were guaranteed access to enough gas to meet their needs.

Had this process moved a little faster, the contract might have been implemented as written. In 2000, however, with a rapidly expanding economy, meager fossil fuels, and terrible relations with its oil-rich neighbors, Israel found itself facing a chronic energy shortage. Instead of attempting to answer its problem with an aggressive but feasible effort to develop renewable sources of energy, Prime Minister Ehud Barak initiated the era of Eastern Mediterranean fossil fuel conflicts. He brought Israel's naval control of Gazan coastal waters to bear and nixed the deal with BG. Instead, he demanded that Israel, not Egypt, receive the Gaza gas and that it also control all the revenues destined for the Palestinians -- to prevent the money from being used to "fund terror."

With this, the Oslo Accords were officially doomed. By declaring Palestinian control over gas revenues unacceptable, the Israeli government committed itself to not accepting even the most limited kind of Palestinian budgetary autonomy, let alone full sovereignty. Since no Palestinian government or organization would agree to this, a future filled with armed conflict was assured.

The Israeli veto led to the intervention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sought to broker an agreement that would satisfy both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. The result: a 2007 proposal that would have delivered the gas to Israel, not Egypt, at below-market prices, with the same 10% cut of the revenues eventually reaching the PA. However, those funds were first to be delivered to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York for future distribution, which was meant to guarantee that they would not be used for attacks on Israel.

This arrangement still did not satisfy the Israelis, who pointed to the recent victory of the militant Hamas party in Gaza elections as a deal-breaker. Though Hamas had agreed to let the Federal Reserve supervise all spending, the Israeli government, now led by Ehud Olmert, insisted that no "royalties be paid to the Palestinians." Instead, the Israelis would deliver the equivalent of those funds "in goods and services."

This offer the Palestinian government refused. Soon after, Olmert imposed a draconian blockade on Gaza, which Israel's defense minister termed a form of "'economic warfare' that would generate a political crisis, leading to a popular uprising against Hamas." With Egyptian cooperation, Israel then seized control of all commerce in and out of Gaza, severely limiting even food imports and eliminating its fishing industry. As Olmert advisor Dov Weisglass summed up this agenda, the Israeli government was putting the Palestinians "on a diet" (which, according to the Red Cross, soon produced "chronic malnutrition," especially among Gazan children).

When the Palestinians still refused to accept Israel's terms, the Olmert government decided to unilaterally extract the gas, something that, they believed, could only occur once Hamas had been displaced or disarmed. As former Israel Defense Forces commander and current Foreign Minister Moshe Ya'alon explained, "Hamas... hasconfirmed its capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations... It is clear that, without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement."

Following this logic, Operation Cast Lead was launched in the winter of 2008. According to Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, it was intended to subject Gaza to a "shoah" (the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster). Yoav Galant, the commanding general of the Operation, said that it was designed to "send Gaza decades into the past." As Israeli parliamentarian Tzachi Hanegbi explained, the specific military goal was "to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel."

Operation Cast Lead did indeed "send Gaza decades into the past." Amnesty International reported that the 22-day offensive killed 1,400 Palestinians, "including some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground, leaving many thousands homeless and the already dire economy in ruins." The only problem: Operation Cast Lead did not achieve its goal of "transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel."

More Sources of Gas Equal More Resource Wars

In 2009, the newly elected government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inherited the stalemate around Gaza's gas deposits and an Israeli energy crisis that only grew more severe when the Arab Spring in Egypt interrupted and then obliterated 40% of the country's gas supplies. Rising energy prices soon contributed to the largest protests involving Jewish Israelis in decades.

As it happened, however, the Netanyahu regime also inherited a potentially permanent solution to the problem. An immense field of recoverable natural gas was discovered in the Levantine Basin, a mainly offshore formation under the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli officials immediately asserted that "most" of the newly confirmed gas reserves lay "within Israeli territory." In doing so, they ignored contrary claims by Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and the Palestinians.

In some other world, this immense gas field might have been effectively exploited by the five claimants jointly, and a production plan might even have been put in place to ameliorate the environmental impact of releasing a future 130 trillion cubic feet of gas into the planet's atmosphere. However, as Pierre Terzian, editor of the oil industry journal Petrostrategies, observed, "All the elements of danger are there... This is a region where resorting to violent action is not something unusual."

In the three years that followed the discovery, Terzian's warning seemed ever more prescient. Lebanon became the first hot spot. In early 2011, the Israeli government announced the unilateral development of two fields, about 10% of that Levantine Basin gas, which lay in disputed offshore waters near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil immediately threatened a military confrontation, asserting that his country would "not allow Israel or any company working for Israeli interests to take any amount of our gas that is falling in our zone." Hezbollah, the most aggressive political faction in Lebanon, promised rocket attacks if "a single meter" of natural gas was extracted from the disputed fields.

Israel's Resource Minister accepted the challenge, asserting that "[t]hese areas are within the economic waters of Israel... We will not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law."

Oil industry journalist Terzian offered this analysis of the realities of the confrontation:

"In practical terms... nobody is going to invest with Lebanon in disputed waters. There are no Lebanese companies there capable of carrying out the drilling, and there is no military force that could protect them. But on the other side, things are different. You have Israeli companies that have the ability to operate in offshore areas, and they could take the risk under the protection of the Israeli military."

Sure enough, Israel continued its exploration and drilling in the two disputed fields, deploying drones to guard the facilities. Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government invested major resources in preparing for possible future military confrontations in the area. For one thing, with lavish U.S. funding, it developed the "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system designed in part to intercept Hezbollah and Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli energy facilities. It also expanded the Israeli navy, focusing on its ability to deter or repel threats to offshore energy facilities. Finally, starting in 2011 it launched airstrikes in Syria designed, according to U.S. officials, "to prevent any transfer of advanced... antiaircraft, surface-to-surface and shore-to-ship missiles" to Hezbollah.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah continued to stockpile rockets capable of demolishing Israeli facilities. And in 2013, Lebanon made a move of its own. It began negotiating with Russia. The goal was to get that country's gas firms to develop Lebanese offshore claims, while the formidable Russian navy would lend a hand with the "long-running territorial dispute with Israel."

By the beginning of 2015, a state of mutual deterrence appeared to be setting in. Although Israel had succeeded in bringing online the smaller of the two fields it set out to develop, drilling in the larger one was indefinitely stalled "in light of the security situation." U.S. contractor Noble Energy, hired by the Israelis, was unwilling to invest the necessary $6 billion in facilities that would be vulnerable to Hezbollah attack, and potentially in the gun sights of the Russian navy. On the Lebanese side, despite an increased Russian naval presence in the region, no work had begun.

Meanwhile, in Syria, where violence was rife and the country in a state of armed collapse, another kind of stalemate went into effect. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, facing a ferocious threat from various groups of jihadists, survived in part by negotiating massive military support from Russia in exchange for a 25-year contract to develop Syria's claims to that Levantine gas field. Included in the deal was a major expansion of the Russian naval base at the port city of Tartus, ensuring a far larger Russian naval presence in the Levantine Basin.

While the presence of the Russians apparently deterred the Israelis from attempting to develop any Syrian-claimed gas deposits, there was no Russian presence in Syria proper. So Israel contracted with the U.S.-based Genie Energy Corporation to locate and develop oil fields in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by the Israelis since 1967. Facing a potential violation of international law, the Netanyahu government invoked, as the basis for its acts, an Israeli court ruling that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories was legal. At the same time, to prepare for the inevitable battle with whichever faction or factions emerged triumphant from the Syrian civil war, it began shoring up the Israeli military presence in the Golan Heights.

And then there was Cyprus, the only Levantine claimant not at war with Israel. Greek Cypriots had long been in chronic conflict with Turkish Cypriots, so it was hardly surprising that the Levantine natural gas discovery triggered three years of deadlocked negotiations on the island over what to do. In 2014, the Greek Cypriots signed an exploration contract with Noble Energy, Israel's chief contractor. The Turkish Cypriots trumped this move by signing a contract with Turkey to explore all Cypriot claims "as far as Egyptian waters." Emulating Israel and Russia, the Turkish government promptly moved three navy vessels into the area to physically block any intervention by other claimants.

As a result, four years of maneuvering around the newly discovered Levantine Basin deposits have produced little energy, but brought new and powerful claimants into the mix, launched a significant military build-up in the region, and heightened tensions immeasurably.

Gaza Again -- and Again

Remember the Iron Dome system, developed in part to stop Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel's northern gas fields? Over time, it was put in place near the border with Gaza to stop Hamas rockets, and was tested during Operation Returning Echo, the fourth Israeli military attempt to bring Hamas to heel and eliminate any Palestinian "capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations."

Launched in March 2012, it replicated on a reduced scale the devastation of Operation Cast Lead, while the Iron Dome achieved a 90% "kill rate" against Hamas rockets. Even this, however, while a useful adjunct to the vast shelter system built to protect Israeli civilians, was not enough to ensure the protection of the country's exposed oil facilities. Even one direct hit there could damage or demolish such fragile and flammable structures.

The failure of Operation Returning Echo to settle anything triggered another round of negotiations, which once again stalled over the Palestinian rejection of Israel's demand to control all fuel and revenues destined for Gaza and the West Bank. The new Palestinian Unity government then followed the lead of the Lebanese, Syrians, and Turkish Cypriots, and in late 2013 signed an "exploration concession" with Gazprom, the huge Russian natural gas company. As with Lebanon and Syria, the Russian Navy loomed as a potential deterrent to Israeli interference.

Meanwhile, in 2013, a new round of energy blackouts caused "chaos" across Israel, triggering a draconian 47% increase in electricity prices. In response, the Netanyahu government considered a proposal to begin extracting domestic shale oil, but the potential contamination of water resources caused a backlash movement that frustrated this effort. In a country filled with start-up high-tech firms, the exploitation of renewable energy sources was still not being given serious attention. Instead, the government once again turned to Gaza.

With Gazprom's move to develop the Palestinian-claimed gas deposits on the horizon, the Israelis launched their fifth military effort to force Palestinian acquiescence, Operation Protective Edge. It had two major hydrocarbon-related goals: to deter Palestinian-Russian plans and to finally eliminate the Gazan rocket systems. The first goal was apparently met when Gazprom postponed (perhaps permanently) its development deal. The second, however, failed when the two-pronged land and air attack -- despite unprecedented devastation in Gaza -- failed to destroy Hamas's rocket stockpiles or its tunnel-based assembly system; nor did the Iron Dome achieve the sort of near-perfect interception rate needed to protect proposed energy installations.

There Is No Denouement

After 25 years and five failed Israeli military efforts, Gaza's natural gas is still underwater and, after four years, the same can be said for almost all of the Levantine gas. But things are not the same. In energy terms, Israel is ever more desperate, even as it has been building up its military, including its navy, in significant ways. The other claimants have, in turn, found larger and more powerful partners to help reinforce their economic and military claims. All of this undoubtedly means that the first quarter-century of crisis over eastern Mediterranean natural gas has been nothing but prelude. Ahead lies the possibility of bigger gas wars with the devastation they are likely to bring.

Michael Schwartz, an emeritus distinguished teaching professor of sociology at Stony Brook University, is a TomDispatch regular and the author of the award-winning books Radical Protest and Social Structure andThe Power Structure of American Business (with Beth Mintz). His TomDispatch book, War Without End, focused on how the militarized geopolitics of oil led the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. His email address is Michael.Schwartz@stonybrook.edu.

And finally on Ukraine. Our cooperation here has been immense. From reform measures in Ukraine, to sanctions against Russia. From reverse gas flow from Slovakia to Ukraine, to integration of South East Europe in the EU's energy market. All have been driven by EU-US cooperation.

Together then, we already have achieved so much, but we could still achieve so much more.

The best way to do this is through our trans-Atlantic market - the world's largest trade and investment zone.

Energy needs to be a key part of Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership discussions. Our trans-Atlantic energy approach needs to be embedded in this new agreement, we need detailed provisions and promote common standards for the energy sector, and we need gas to be traded freely across the Atlantic.

mercredi, 11 février 2015

Arctic Resources to Boost Russia’s Pivot to Asia

The West is not the only global player to have its eyes on Asia. Russia is looking to become a key energy supplier for the Chinese and Indian markets and will use its Arctic gas to do so.

Global energy markets in deep transition

Russia is looking at diversifying its oil and gas exports which have so far mostly targeted the European market. Additionally, the recent tensions with the West, followed by economic sanctions, and the slow-down of Europe’s economy have made it necessary for the Kremlin to find new recipients for its oil and gas exports.

According to recent estimates, by 2050, emerging markets will account for 70 percent of the world trade. The Pacific pivot of the world’s main economies is quietly taking shape, and the Kremlin is jumping on the bandwagon.

Russia and India together in the Arctic

Last month, Gazprom Marketing & Trading Singapore (GM&T) and Yamal Trade entered a long-term contract for liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply. And most of the gas will be delivered to India. According to Gazprom’s website, the contract will be effective for over 20 years and provide an annual supply of 2.9 million tons of LNG. Although the price of the contract has not been announced yet, it will be determined using the formula with oil indexation, the news report says.

What is interesting in this deal is that Russia will be using its Arctic resources to supply a client for over 20 years. Beyond being another solid evidence of the «Indo-Pacific» pivot, this move teaches us two important things. First, that discussions about dropping Arctic oil and gas projects are somewhat moot and second, that long-term economic development of the Arctic is underway.

Analysis

First, some context. Let’s look at the actors involved in Russia’s energetic pivot to Asia. GM&T is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Gazprom group. It has five offices around the world, including one in Singapore established in 2010, focusing mainly on trading LNG.

Yamal Trade, a subsidiary of Yamal LNG founded in 2006 and headquartered in Moscow, offers LNG exploration and production services, such as the engineering and designing of the Sabetta onshore LNG facility. The construction of the Sabetta port in the Yamal peninsula started in 2012, and it comes as no surprise that the port is designed to facilitate shipments of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region.

The contract signed last month did not happen overnight. The deal is the result of lengthy talks and it took years for the Russian-Indian partnership to develop and mature.

In October 2013, Indian state-owned oil company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) expressed its interest in partnering with Russia to explore for oil and gas in Russia’s Arctic waters. Officials from the two countries met and discussed the possibilities for exporting Russian gas to India via pipeline.

A few months later, in January 2014, Russia’s Energy Ministry unveiled a draft plan to at least double its oil and gas flows to Asia over the next 20 years. In 2013, only 16% of the total Russian oil and gas exports was sent to Asia. But by 2035, the Kremlin’s goal is to raise gas exports to Asia from 6% to 31%.

Then, in May 2014, it became public that GM&T and Yamal Trade signed an agreement to supply up to 3 million tons of LNG, and already, India was to be the main recipient. The press release stressed that LNG would be delivered under «FOB» terms. FOB stands for «free on board», meaning that «the individual or organization buying the goods is responsible for freight costs/liability». The LNG would transit from Western Europe to Asia.

By the end of 2014, during the 20th Offshore South East Asia Conference and Exhibition (OSEA) in Singapore in December, Moscow’s top oil and gas officials announced that Russia would take Asia-Pacific countries as main partners in the oil and gas sector and highlighted the benefits of mutual cooperation. OSEA is «Asia’s leading business technology event for the oil and gas industry», explains the official website.

Russia’s economic policy statement represents a landmark in its energy policy history and will have consequences that stretch far beyond the simple business relationship established between the two countries.

A few days later the same month, during Putin’s visit to India, Putin declared he was ready to export LNG to India with the involvement of the ONGC in Arctic projects. According to the company’s website, ONGC is ranked as the top energy company in India, fifth in Asia and has a market value of 46.4 billion US dollars – against 99.9 billion US dollars for Gazprom in 2013.

Putin also specified that using a cross-country pipeline to export natural gas would be much more expensive than relying on shipping to sell it in its liquid form, LNG. In the end, it comes down to a “question of commercial feasibility”, Putin said.

With a booming economy and population, India was the fourth-largest energy consumer in the world in 2011, the EIA notes. And although coal is still its main source of energy, New Delhi is actively trying to reform its energy sector.

India is expected to start receiving LNG shipments as early as in 2017, Putin indicated during his state visit.

Years of negotiations between Moscow and New Delhi paved the way for the contract signed on January 23rd by GM&T and Yamal Trade. According to the terms of the contract, an annual supply of 2.9 million tons of LNG will be shipped to Asia, most of which will end up fuelling India’s fast-growing energy needs.

Implications for the future

Although some pushed for a halt in Arctic drilling, Russian Natural Resources Minister Sergey Donskoy’s statement this week is not shocking in any way. « No one has suggested that the oil production forecast [in the Arctic] should be reduced », the minister said.

The « Russindian » deal evidently illustrates the major ongoing transformations that are happening in the energy sector: the exploitation of resources in new areas, and the need for the world’s main energy suppliers to broaden their horizons in amending their export policies. To draw a parallel, one could argue that, to some extent, Russia is in a situation similar to the one of Canada. A situation where the traditional recipients for energy exports (the U.S and the E.U) no longer reflect stability and predictability, but rather waning economic partners.

lundi, 16 juin 2014

Why Is the U.S. Afraid of South Stream?

The West is continuing to twist the arms of Russia's partners in building the South Stream gas pipeline. Hot on the heels of the Bulgarian government, Serbia has announced that work will be suspended. Both countries cited the position of the European Commission. But EU energy commissioner Gunther Oettinger refuses to discuss the construction of South Stream in the format of a consultation with Russia, the project's main participant…

While Bulgarian Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski explained the suspension of work on the South Stream project with a request from the European Commission and the need for «additional consultations with Brussels», Serbian Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister Zorana Mihajlovic attempted to blame her country’s historical rival in the Balkan region - Sofia. However, she did not refrain from political speculations either. «Until the negotiations between Bulgaria and Brussels and between the EU and Russia are finished, we are going to stand idle. Or until Russia changes its position. In any case, the result of both scenarios is that work in our country is being delayed».

But the Serbian minister did not mention that «Russia's position» with regard to the South Stream project was set down back in early 2008 as part of Russian-Serbian intergovernmental agreements on energy cooperation. The obligations of the parties with regard to South Stream were the main topic of those documents, which were later ratified by the parliament of Serbia and confirmed by all subsequent national governments. Besides the intergovernmental agreement on energy cooperation, an agreement for Gazprom Neft to purchase a controlling interest in Serbia's oil monopoly Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) for 400 million euros and 500 million euros in investment commitments was under discussion. It is not surprising that Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic had to correct his cabinet member; he stated that the Serbian government has not made any decisions to suspend the implementation of the South Stream project.

As for the Russian-Bulgarian agreement on Bulgaria's participation in the South Stream project and the creation of a joint enterprise to this end, that agreement was ratified by the Bulgarian parliament in July 2008. And in May 2009 in Moscow, gas companies from Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece signed a summation document on the construction of the South Stream pipeline. In August 2009 this document was supplemented with a protocol signed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the transit of the South Stream pipeline through Turkish territorial waters. Not long after that, the French company Electricite de France joined the number of project participants.

Such is the true canvas of events which testifies to the groundlessness of references to some kind of incompatibility between the South Stream project and the national interests of Bulgaria and Serbia or international legal practices which supposedly has now come to light. And even the European Commission was well aware of the provisions of the 2008 agreements. We must look elsewhere for the reasons for the unexpected anti-Russian speeches sounding from Sofia and echoing in Belgrade.

The fact that Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski made his statement on South Stream after a meeting with three high-ranking representatives of the U.S., headed by Senator John McCain, did not escape the attention of the Bulgarian public. McCain did not even bother to conceal the demands the American emissaries made of Sofia and other partners of Russia: «We understand that there are some issues concerning the South Stream pipeline project...obviously we want as little Russian involvement as possible».

According to available information, Washington has decided to strike a new blow to South Stream, in whose construction German and French companies are also participating, after receiving alarming news from Baku. A source in the Azerbaijani company SOCAR indicated that the French company Total and the German company E.ON might sell their shares in the project for building the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP): «The German concern E.ON has already announced its intentions to sell its stake in the TAP project. France's Total also announced intentions to sell its participation in the project». Considering that TAP was intended to replace the failed Nabucco project, which the European Union and the U.S. actively lobbied for, Washington and Brussels' panic is understandable.

There is one more thing which is making the Americans nervous. This is connected with a change in the situation on the world energy market. The recently published report of the International Energy Agency, World Energy Investment Outlook 2014, predicts a slump in the «shale revolution» in the U.S., and, most importantly, an increase in the dependence of the United States on gas imports at a time when Saudi Arabia and Iran's export capabilities have decreased.

In this situation, Washington decided that it was urgently necessary to take control of the main routes for transporting energy resources connecting Russia and Europe. And Washington sees blackmailing Russia, for which Brussels, Sofia and Belgrade were tools, as a completely suitable means of serving its own interests.

dimanche, 01 juin 2014

Japanese Politicians Hoping to Kick Start a Natural Gas Pipeline with the Russian Federation

Michiyo Tanabe and Nuray Lydia Oglu

Modern Tokyo Times

Ex: http://moderntokyotimes.com

If America is taken out of the equation in relation to geopolitical meddling then Japan and the Russian Federation would have a blooming relationship based on mutual shared interests. These interests apply to greater cultural interaction, economic development, geopolitical issues, greater partnership in the area of energy and other natural resources, closer military ties – and other powerful areas. Therefore, it is hoped that the government of Prime Minister Abe will listen deeply to thirty-three Japanese lawmakers that desire a new important gas pipeline that will link both nations.

Lee Jay Walker at Modern Tokyo Times states: “Indeed, the Russian Federation in the area of energy and natural resources is of major significance to all nations in Northeast Asia. This reality is abundantly clear to China and this also ties in with Central Asia where the influence of the Russian Federation remains significant, to say the least. Of course, for China the military angle and space technology in relation to the Russian Federation is also of major importance for the power brokers in Beijing. Likewise, both North Korea and South Korea understand the importance of developing good relations with Moscow. Indeed, unlike other nations throughout the region, the Russian Federation is viewed to be a neutral power throughout the region whereby political elites in Moscow can play a very important role in times of tension throughout Northeast Asia.”

The proposed new gas pipeline will link the Sakhalin Island (Russian Federation) with the prefecture of Ibaraki (Japan). Obviously, this will boost the regional economy of Northern Japan and Ibaraki because many companies will gain in various ways. Also, given the internal crisis in Japan in the area of energy in relation to the nuclear crisis that erupted after a powerful 9.0-magnitude earthquake triggered a brutal tsunami; then clearly the thirty-three Japanese lawmakers have a valid point. Not only this, with the Russian Federation signing a major energy deal with China then it is equally essential that Japan increases its economic, political and geopolitical interests with power brokers based in Moscow.

Naokazu Takemoto, an influential individual within the lawmakers group, is making it known that he will discuss this issue with the leader of Japan. It also bodes well that the leaders of Japan and the Russian Federation have a firm relationship therefore it is hoped that Abe will not succumb to any possible meddling from Washington. After all, while Japan and America have a special relationship it is equally clear that you should never put all your eggs in one basket. Therefore, Japan needs to focus on developing stronger ties with the Russian Federation and likewise political elites in Moscow must become more understanding of the interests of Japan.

President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to visit Japan this autumn therefore it is a great opportunity for both leaders to cement ties between both nations to a much higher degree. This reality means that Takemoto needs to build up fresh momentum and it is hoped that other Japanese lawmakers will come on board. The deal may appear minor after China and the Russian Federation recently agreed to a $400 billion deal whereby Russia’s gas will help to boost the economy of China by enabling a natural flow of energy to this nation over the next 30 years in this deal. Despite this, the $5.9 billion plan being proposed between Japan and the Russian Federation may unleash other fresh projects in the near future.

In the last three years after the nuclear crisis in Fukushima it is known that spending on liquefied imports of natural gas is now just over double the costs of pre-March 11. Of course, the Ministry of Finance fully understands the need to implement a new energy policy in order to meet the demands of business companies. It is hoped that Abe will listen to Takemoto and all members of the group that supports a deal between Japan and the Russian Federation.

In another article by Modern Tokyo Times it was stated: “The Russian Federation is a binding force in uniting Eurasia and Central Asia therefore political elites in Tokyo need to focus on geopolitics and national interests. At the same time, with China and Japan relations being frosty to say the least it is clear that Moscow desires to be an honest broker. Likewise, the Korean Peninsula is very complex but once more the Russian Federation is viewed positively because of being diplomatic towards all regional powers. Similarly, Northern Japan needs greater economic investment and the natural linkages between the Russian Far East and Northern Japan is clear for all to see. Therefore, the above realities and the significance of energy issues and other natural resources that Japan needs must be weighed up heavily by political elites in Tokyo.”

The Foreign Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida, commented in the past that “… Cooperation between Japan and Russia, as key players in the Pacific Ocean region, is important for fortifying peace and stability in the region.”

Therefore, it is hoped that the thirty-three Japanese lawmakers within the ruling parties of Japan will impact greatly on Abe. After all, Japan must always put national interests first rather than succumbing to the whims of America.

mercredi, 07 mai 2014

City of London’s Imperialist Designs on Russia

Yesterday the EU and US imposed additional sanctions on Russia, while 150 US troops landed in neighboring Estonia for military exercises. Two months after Ukraine’s democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country amidst the MI6/CIA/Mossad-orchestrated putsch in Kiev(http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/ukraine-falls-under-fascist-bankster-thumb/), the West continues to ramp up its aggression against Russia, despite repeated attempts at diplomacy by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

So what else is new?

The Rothschild-led City of London bankers have held grand imperialist designs on Russia’s rich natural resources for two centuries, always to be stymied by the odd nationalist czar or Stalinist. Putin thwarted their latest attempts when he jailed Israeli dual citizen Mikail Khodorkovsky and re-nationalized much of Russia’s energy sector. It is no coincidence that one Russian official sanctioned yesterday was Igor Sechin – president of Russian oil giant Rosneft, of which BP still owns a 20 % share.

While the international banking syndicates had always dealt with the Soviet Union, access to its vast oil resources remained limited until Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1980, determined to splinter the Soviet Union into little pieces and open the country’s oilfields to the Four Horsemen. His point man in doing so was CIA Director Bill Casey, whose Roman Catholic Knights of Malta connections were thoroughly exploited.

The Vatican’s secretive Opus Dei “saintly Mafia” was behind the ascent of Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyla to the Papacy. Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II and launched an Opus Dei/Vatican offensive to roll back Latin American liberation theology movements and East European communism. Fascism came naturally to Karol Wojtyla. During the 1940’s he was a chemical salesman for Nazi combine I. G. Farben. Wojtyla sold the Nazis the cyanide they used at their Auschwitz death camps. One of his best friends was Dr. Wolf Szmuness, mastermind of the 1978 Center for Disease Control Hepatitis B study in the US, through which the AIDS virus was introduced into the gay population. [722]

In 1982 Reagan met with Pope John Paul II. Prior to the meeting Reagan signed NSD-32, authorizing a wide range of economic, diplomatic and covert activities to “neutralize the USSR’s hold on Eastern Europe”. At the meeting the two agreed to launch a clandestine program to tear Eastern Europe away from the Soviets. Poland, the Pope’s country of origin, would be the key. Catholic priests, the AFL-CIO, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Vatican Bank and CIA would all be deployed.

The Vatican is the world’s largest owner of equities, using Swiss affiliate Banco di Roma per la Svizzera to conduct its more discretionary business. Italian fascist Benito Mussolini gave the Vatican generous tax exemptions which it still enjoys. Banco Ambrosiano’s P-2 leader Robert Calvi’s Grand Oriente Freemason’s supported reconciliation with the Vatican. Relations between the Vatican and the Freemasons were strained in the 11th century when the Greek Orthodox split from the Roman Catholics. Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaler of St. John factions emerged. The latter was the Catholic faction. They changed their name to the Knights of Malta, after the island where they found refuge after their Crusades defeat, with help from the Vatican. Malta is a nexus of CIA/MI6/Mossad intrigues.

In the 13th century Pope Clement V, backed by France’s King Philip, charged the Protestant Knights Templars with heresy, citing their penchant for drug running, arms peddling, gambling and prostitution rings. These activities are what made the Templars “filthy rich”. Pope Clement made an example of Templar leader Jaques de Molay, whom he burned at the stake on Friday the 13th. [723] The Templars took their loot and fled to Scotland to found Scottish Rite Freemasonry. They bankrolled the House of Windsor, which controls Britain and presides at the apex of Freemasonry around the world. Masonic Lodge members enroll their children in the de Molay Society, which is named in honor of the toasted Templar pirate.

Calvi’s attempt to reconcile protestant and Catholic secret societies was a success. He became paymaster to the Polish Solidarity movement, while Nixon Treasury Secretary David Kennedy’s dirty Continental Illinois Bank served as conduit for CIA funds sent by Bank of Cicero asset Bishop Paul Marcinkus to fund Solidarity. [724] The Vatican teamed up with Europe’s Black Nobility, the Bilderbergers and CIA to launch the top-secret JASON Society and armed South American dictators to quash liberation theology. In 1978 when Pope John Paul II took power, the Vatican issued a commemorative stamp featuring an Egyptian pyramid and the Roshaniya all-seeing eye. [725] The Vatican and the Illuminati Brotherhood were reunited.

Reagan’s meetings with Pope John Paul II were an affirmation of this powerful new alliance, which would now focus on bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. Even before Reagan met with the Pope the CIA had groomed an informant at the Polish Ministry of Defense- Colonel Ryszard Kuklinski. Kuklinski reported to the Vatican and helped organize the Polish Solidarity Movement, led by the wealthy Radziwill family who had funded JFK assassins via Permindex. Most Solidarity leaders were old-money aristocrats.

The precursor to Solidarity was the National Alliance of Solidarists, a Russian/Eastern European fascist hit squad funded by RD/Shell’s Sir Henry Deterding and German Vickers Arms Corporation President Sir Basil Zacharoff. Sir Auckland Geddes of Rio Tinto Zinc, which bankrolled Francisco Franco’s fascist coup in Spain, also contributed to the Solidarists. Geddes’ nephew- Ford Irvine Geddes- was chairman of the Inchcape’s Peninsular & Orient Navigation Company from 1971-1972. [726]

The Solidarist’s US headquarters was the Tolstoy Foundation, which is housed in the same building as Julius Klein Associates, which ran guns to the murderous Haganah and Stern Gang Zionist death squads who stole Palestinian lands to found Israel. Klein was an M16 Permindex insider who helped plan the JFK hit.

The Solidarists stepchild, the Solidarity Movement, was touted in the Western media as a great Polish liberating force. With boatloads of CIA help, Solidarity toppled the Communist government in Warsaw. Their straw man Lech Walesa became President of Poland. In 1995 Walesa was defeated by former Communist leader Aleksander Kwasniewski. Walesa was rewarded for his boot licking with a job at Pepsico.

CIA Director Casey demanded a constant focus on Eastern Europe at CIA. Casey met often with Philadelphia Roman Catholic Cardinal John Krol to discuss the Solidarity Movement. He utilized his Knights of Malta connections, leaning heavily on Brother Vernon Walters, whose spook resume read like a James Bond novel. Walter’s latest incarnation was Reagan Ambassador at Large to Vatican Secretary of State Agostino Cardinal Casaroli. [727] By 1991 Walters was US Ambassador to the UN, where he successfully beat the drums of war against Iraq. He was in Fiji that same year, just prior to the overthrow of that left-leaning government.

Other Knights of Malta members involved in the Eastern European destabilization effort were Reagan NSA and Robert Vesco lieutenant Richard Allen, Reagan NSA Judge William Clark, Reagan Ambassador to the Vatican William Wilson and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Other prominent Knights of Malta members include Prescott Bush, Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon, Nixon coup-plotter Alexander Haig, contra supporter J. Peter Grace and Venezuelan Rockefeller lieutenant Gustavo Cisneros.

The Reagan team had a five-part strategy in its efforts to destroy the Soviet Union. First, it would pursue the JASON Society’s Star Wars concept in an attempt to engage the Soviets in a space-based arms race which they knew Moscow could not afford. Second, the CIA would launch covert operations in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in attempts to overthrow those Soviet-allied governments. While Walesa emerged in Poland, poet Vaclev Havel became CIA white knight in Czechoslovakia. Like Walesa, Havel became unpopular and was soon tossed out of his puppet presidency.

A component of the CIA destabilization program was to buy weapons from these East European nations to arm CIA-sponsored rebels in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola and Mozambique, using BCCI and later BNL as conduits. The US also wanted to get their hands on the high-tech Soviet arsenal. Poland secretly sold the US an array of advanced Soviet weaponry worth $200 million. Romania did the same. Both countries saw their foreign debts reduced significantly. [728]

The third component of the Reagan strategy was to make financial aid to the Warsaw Pact contingent on economic privatization. Fourth, the US would blanket East European and Soviet airwaves with pro-Western propaganda, using fronts like Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America. The CIA financed local newspapers and magazines.

The Company got help inside the Soviet Union from its Mossad buddies in an effort spearheaded by media mogul and Mossad paymaster Robert Maxwell. When Maxwell threatened to reveal a meeting between KGB head Vladimir Kryuchkov and Mossad brass aboard his private yacht at which a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev was discussed, Mossad ordered a hit on Maxwell. On November 4, 1991 as he sailed around the Canary Islands Maxwell was assassinated by Israeli commandos. The mass exodus of Russian Jews to Israeli-occupied settlements in Palestine was part of the secret deal between Mossad and Kryuchkov, who is still serving time in a Moscow prison for his treasonous role in the Gorbachev coup. [729]

But it was the fifth and final component of Reagan’s strategy that had the Four Horsemen salivating. Reagan’s spooks initiated an economic warfare campaign against the Soviet Union, which included a freeze on technology transfers, counterfeiting of the Russian ruble and the sponsoring of separatist Islamist groups in the Soviet Central Asian Caucasus. The jihadis who were instructed to target a key transcontinental natural gas pipeline which the Soviets were building. The Soviets had more natural gas than any country on earth and saw the completion of this pipeline as their cash cow for the 21st century. [730] Big Oil wanted to milk that cow.

It’s the Oil, Stupid

When the Soviet Union’s last President Mikhail Gorbachev announced his perestroika and glasnost campaigns to privatize his country’s economy, he was aiding the Illuminati in destroying his country. Was Gorbachev duped, an unwitting accomplice, a CIA deep-cover agent or a mind-controlled Operation Presidio Temple of Set victim? Whatever the case, he played a key role in dismantling the Soviet Union.

The Soviets controlled not only the vast resources of their own nation, but Third World resources in Soviet-allied Comecon nations. Part of perestroika was to cease Soviet aid to these developing nations to ease the growing Soviet debt burden which, like the US debt, accrued largely from decades of Cold War military spending. The two superpowers’ debt was held by the same international banks, which now used this debt lever to pick a winner and to open Russian and Third World resource pools to their corporate tentacles. [731]

When the Berlin Wall fell and Gorbachev was overthrown in favor of IMF crony Boris Yeltsin, the Four Horsemen rushed to Moscow to begin making oil deals. Oil and natural gas had always been the Soviet’s main export and it remained so for the new Russia. In 1991, the country earned $13 billion in hard currency from oil exports. In 1992 Yeltsin announced that Russia’s world leading 9.2 billion barrel/day oil sector would be privatized.

Sixty percent of Russia’s Siberian reserves had never been tapped. [732] In 1993 the World Bank announced a $610 billion loan to modernize Russia’s oil industry- by far the largest loan in the bank’s history. World Bank subsidiary International Finance Corporation bought stock in several Russian oil companies and made an additional loan to the Bronfman’s Conoco for its purchase of Siberian Polar Lights Company. [733]

The main vehicle for international banker control over Russian oil was Lukoil, initially 20%-owned by BP Amoco and Credit Suisse First Boston, where Clinton Yugoslav envoy and Dayton Peace Accords architect Richard Holbrooke worked. Bush Sr. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who orchestrated the BNL cover-up, was now CS First Boston’s Chief Financial Officer. A handful of Zionist Russian oligarchs, collectively known as the Russian Mafia, owned the rest of Lukoil, which served as the Saudi ARAMCO of Russia for the Four Horsemen, a partner to Big Oil in projects throughout the country which involved truly staggering amounts of capital.

These included Sakhalin Islands projects known as Sakhalin I, a $15 billion Exxon Mobil venture; and Sakhalin II, a $10 billion deal led by Royal Dutch/Shell which included Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Marathon Oil as partners. Siberian developments were even larger. RD/Shell is a 24.5% partner in Uganskneftegasin, which controls a huge Siberian natural gas field. At Priobskoye, BP Amoco operates a $53 billion project. At Timan Pechora on the Arctic Ocean a consortium made up of Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco and Norsk Hydo runs a $48 billion venture.

In November 2001 Exxon Mobil announced plans to invest another $12 billion in an oil and gas project in the Russian Far East. RD/Shell announced a $8.5 billion investment in its Sakhalin Islands concessions. BP Amoco made similar proclamations. [734] In 1994 Lukoil pumped 416 million barrels of oil, making it fourth largest producer in the world after RD/Shell, Exxon Mobil and part-owner BP Amoco. Its fifteen billion barrels in crude reserves rank second in the world to Royal Dutch/ Shell. [735]

The Soviet Caucasus, with encouragement from Langley, soon split from Russia. The map of Central Asia was re-written as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia all declared their independence. The pipeline Reagan ordered targeted carried Soviet natural gas east to the North Pacific port of Vladivostok and west to the Black Sea port of Novorrossiysk from the world’s richest known natural gas fields lying beneath and abutting the shoreline of the Caspian Sea, which lies in the heart of Caucasus.

The Four Horsemen coveted this resource more than any in the world. They wanted to build their own private pipelines once they got their hands on the Caspian Sea natural gas fields, which also contain an estimated 200 billion barrels of crude oil. Oil industry privatizations were quickly announced in the new Central Asian Republics which had, by virtue of their independence, taken control of the vast Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves. By 1991 Chevron was holding talks with Kazakhstan. [736]

The Central Asian Republics became the largest recipients of USAID aid, as well as ExIm Bank, OPIC and CCC loans. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan were especially favored. These countries control the shoreline of the Caspian Sea, along with Russia and Iran. In 1994 Kazakhstan received $311 million in US aid and another $85 million to help dismantle Soviet-era nuclear weapons. President Clinton met with Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. They signed an array of agreements ranging from disarmament deals to space research cooperation. Kazakhstan, with an estimated 17.6 billion barrels of oil reserves, had been a strategic part of the Soviet nuclear weapons grid and was home to the Soviet space program.

The two leaders also signed an agreement providing investment protection for US multinationals. The Free Trade Institute and US Chamber of Commerce sent officials to train Kazakhs in the finer arts of global capitalism. The Four Horsemen moved in swiftly. Chevron Texaco laid claim to the biggest prize- the $20 billion Tenghiz oilfield- then grabbed another gusher at Korolev. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to develop an offshore concession in the Caspian. [737] Tengizchevroil is 45%-owned by Chevron Texaco and 25%-owned by Exxon Mobil. [738] President George W. Bush’s NSA and later Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, an expert on Central Asia, sat on the board at Chevron alongside George Schultz from 1989-1992. She even had an oil tanker named after her.

Across the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid. BP Amoco led a consortium of seven oil giants who spent an initial $8 billion to develop three concessions off the coast of the capital Baku- historic base camp of Big Oil in the region. [739] BP Amoco and Pennzoil- recently acquired by Royal Dutch/Shell- took control of the Azerbaijan Oil Company, whose board of directors included former Bush Sr. Secretary of State James Baker.

In 1991 Air America super spook Richard Secord showed up in Baku under the cover of MEGA Oil. [740] Secord & Company did military training, sold Israeli arms, passed “brown bags filled with cash” and shipped in over 2,000 Islamist fighters from Afghanistan with help from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Afghan heroin began flooding into Baku. Russian economist Alexandre Datskevitch said of 184 heroin labs that police discovered in Moscow in 1991, “Every one of them was run by Azeris, who use the proceeds to buy arms for Azerbaijan’s war against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh”. [741]

A Turkish intelligence source claims that Exxon and Mobil were behind the 1993 coup against elected Armenian President Abulfaz Elchibey. Secord’s Islamists helped. Osama bin Laden set up an NGO in Baku as a base for attacking the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan. A more pliant President Heidar Aliyev was installed. In 1996, at the behest of Amoco’s president, he was invited to the White House to meet President Clinton- whose NSA Sandy Berger held $90,000 worth of Amoco stock. [742]

Armenian separatists backed by the CIA took over the strategic Armenian regions of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhnichevan which border Turkey and Iran. When Turkish President Turgut Ozal mentioned intervention in Nakhnichevan to back the Azerbaijani seizure, Turkish Premier Suleyman Demirel quickly played down the statement from the key US ally. These two regions are critical to Big Oil plans to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Turkey to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorrossiysk. The same route is utilized by Turkey’s Gray Wolves mafia in their Central Asia to Europe heroin endeavors. When Gray Wolf Mehmet Ali Agca tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981, the CIA used its Gladio strategy, trying to pin it on Bulgaria’s Communist Lukashenko government.

Lukoil owns 26% of the Russian Black Sea port at Novorrossiysk. Its president Vayit Alekperov wanted to build the Caspian pipeline through Grozny in Chechnya, while the Four Horsemen preferred the route through Turkey. CIA support for Armenian separatists and Chechen Islamist rebels ensured chaos in Grozny. Alekperov finally agreed to the Turkish route.

In 2003 the Defense Department proposed a $3.8 million military training grant for Azerbaijan. Later they admitted it was to protect US access to oil. As author Michael Klare put it, “Slowly but surely, the US military is being converted into a global oil-protection service”. [743]

Turkmenistan, which borders the Caspian Sea on the southeast, is a virtual gas republic, containing massive deposits of natural gas. It also has vast reserves of oil, copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, uranium and gold. The biggest gas field is at Dauletabad in the southeast of the country, near the Afghan border. The Unocal-led Centgas set about building a pipeline which would connect the oil fields around Chardzhan to the Siberian oilfields further north. More crucial to Centgas was a gas pipeline from Dauletabad across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. [744] Advisers to the project included Henry Kissinger. Unocal is now part of Chevron.

With the Four Horsemen firmly in charge of Caspian Sea reserves, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium was born. Chevron Texaco took a 15% stake with the other three Horsemen and Lukoil splitting the rest. Pipeline security was provided by the Israeli firm Magal Security Systems, which is connected to Mossad. Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have especially cozy relations with Israel via Special Ambassador Yusef Maiman, who is president of the Israeli Mehrav Group. Mehrav is involved in a project in Turkey to divert water from the upper Tigres and Euphrates Rivers to the southeast part of Turkey and away from Iraq. [745] The Caspian pipeline was built by Bechtel in partnership with GE and Wilbros Group. The pipeline quietly began moving oil and gas in November 2001, just two months after 911.

Bechtel also built the oilfield infrastructure at Tengiz for Chevron Texaco. In 1995 Bechtel led a USAID-funded consortium to restructure the energy sectors of eleven Central and Eastern European nations in line with IMF mandates. Bechtel received a massive contract to upgrade Russia’s many ailing aluminum smelters in tandem with Pechiney. Lukoil contracted with New Jersey-based ABB Lummus Crest (formed when engineering giants Asea Braun Boveri and Lummis Crest merged) to build a $1.3 billion refinery at the Novorrossysk port and to do a $700 million upgrade on its refinery at Perm.

The Bush Jr. Administration now planned a series of additional Caspian Sea pipelines to compliment the Tenghiz-Black Sea route. A Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline was built by a Four Horsemen consortium led by BP Amoco. The law firm representing the BP-led consortium is James Baker’s family law firm- Baker Botts. The BP Amoco pipeline runs the length of the country of Georgia through its capital Tblisi.

In February 2002 the US announced plans to send 200 military advisers and attack helicopters to Georgia to “root our terrorism”. [746] The deployment was a smokescreen for pipeline protection. In September 2002 Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivaniov accused Georgia of harboring Chechen rebels. In October 2003 Georgian President Eduard Schevardnadze was forced to step down in a bloodless revolution. According to a December 11, 2003 article on the World Socialist Party website, CIA sponsored the coup.

In September 2004 hundreds of Russian school children were killed when Chechen separatists seized their school building. Russian President Vladimir Putin said of the incident, “Certain political circles in the West want to weaken Russia, just like the Romans wanted to weaken Carthage.” He accused “foreign intelligence services” of complicity in the attacks. His adviser Aslanbek Aslakhanov went further, stating on Russian Channel 2 News, “The men had their conversations not within Russia, but with other countries. They were led on a leash. Our self-styled friends have been working for several decades to dismember Russia… (they are the) puppeteers and are financing terror.” Russia’s KM News ran the headline, “School Seizure was Planned in Washington and London”. [747]

Lukoil epitomizes the corruption so rampant in Russia since the Soviet collapse. Bribery is the norm. Lukoil has given luxury jets to the mayor of Moscow, the head of Gazprom (the state-owned natural gas monopoly) and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev. In the mid-1990’s Lukoil announced that it would sell another 15 % stake to foreign stockholders through its largest owner and financial adviser CS First Boston and the Bank of New York. [748] In 2002 they announced plans to sell off another big stake.

According to Kurt Wulff of the oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-1994 as follows: Exxon Mobil- 54%, Chevron Texaco- 74%, Royal Dutch/Shell- 52% and BP Amoco- 54%. The Horsemen had more than doubled their collective assets in six short years. This quantum leap in Anglo-American global power had everything to do with the takeover of the old Soviet oil patch and the subsequent impoverishment of its birthright owners.